3. Practices during and directly after the challenges
3.1 The challenges
Chapter 3 describes the changes that occurred in the households participating in the ELLs during and directly after the two times four-week challenges, or altogether 7 weeks as the laundry and heating challenges overlapped for one week (see Figure 4). These challenges were to reduce indoor temperatures to 18°C, or if deemed impossible, determine an individual challenge, as well as to cut the number of laundry cycles by half, or if infeasible, determine an individual laundry challenge. Table 11 shows the share of households signing up to the common challenge, and provides examples of individually defined challenges. As there was an unexpected difference between ELL1 and ELL2 participants signing up for the common challenge, we also indicated the numbers by living lab.
Table 11. Share of households signing up for common or/and individual challenges
Source: challenge cards filled in by participant at the end of the deliberation interviews (ELL1) and the deliberation focus group meeting (ELL2)
n=39 (ELL1=20, ELL2=19) as 2 participants did not fill in their challenge cards.
Nevertheless, they participated in the challenge and attempted to reduce laundry cycle numbers and indoor temperature.
Washing at 30 C throughout the challenge.
Reducing energy used for laundering in other ways (e.g.
only full loads, reducing spinning speed, selecting clothes more carefully) Reducing the temperature for night from 24 to 20 C
As Table 11 shows, in the case of both the laundry and heating challenge more ELL1 participants took on the common challenge than ELL2 participants, especially in the case of the laundry challenge. To some extent this is contrary to our expectation in Hungary that the group setting in the case of ELL2 may provide extra pressure from the group to take on the challenge. However, the group setting had an effect to the contrary in this case as many participants expressed uncertainty about taking on the common challenge because their family members were not present and they were reluctant to undertake something that impacts them without their consent.
In the case of ELL1 it was often the case that some family members were present at the interview in addition to the main contact person, so challenges could sometimes be undertaken with some discussion between family members. This, however, was not always the case and then at times
34
challenges occurred in implementation because the partner of the interviewee did not agree with the challenge and thus did not support its implementation, as exemplified by the following quote from a female participant:
“I don’t remember if I took on the 20 or the 21 challenge, but it was something like that.
My husband got a shock and asked me how I dared taking this on, there is a small child here and she will get cold especially at bathing time. At the beginning we were paying attention, then the temperature started to go up… we managed to reduce it by 1-1.5 degrees compared to where we were before. But it was hard that my partner/husband wasn’t a partner in this challenge.”
Secondly, in case of the individual interviews for ELL1 participants, the pressure on participants to agree to do the common challenge could have been stronger due to the presence of the interviewer.
As can be seen from Table 11, a higher percentage of ELL participants took on the common laundry challenge (54%) than the common heating challenge (33%). Part of the reason for this is the fact that the average daytime temperature in the living room is rather high (22 C) compared to the 18 C defined in the challenge. To reduce the temperature to 18 C within 4 weeks is indeed a rather ambitious challenge, and few participants were ready to undertake it. There were several participants who commented on the shortness of the challenge period for the heating challenge at the closing/exit interviews and focus group discussion. The quote below from a male ELL2 participant with 3 young kids is a good illustration of this:
"We agreed to the common challenge, to reduce to 18 C, which was quite a brave decision for us. So far, we haven't reached it, but we're not giving up, we'll get there by the end of January. At the moment we're at 19.5 - 20 C, but there's still some potential. The challenge period was too short for us to reach 18 C; we'd have needed more time to get there."
At the deliberation focus group meeting, participants struggled with the laundry challenge, and there was also some discussion as to what could be a challenge if participants felt they could not take on the common challenge. The following quote exemplifies this struggle:
"I really don't know what kind of challenge to undertake. We have a lot of kids and thus wash a lot, every day, often several washes a day. I'm looking at my laundry diary and I can see that we usually wash at 40 C, but the 30 C washes use a lot less energy. So, perhaps we can try to wash at 30 C instead of 40 C. Because the detergents are quite efficient, so they'll probably work well at 30 C as well." (female participant) Alternative challenge options were discussed, participants studied the baseline data in their individual laundry diaries that they all brought along to the meeting, and they also attempted to help one another with ideas, e.g.:
you could reduce the washing temperature if you already have very few washes;
you could sign up to only start full loads;
you could sing up to use your drier less or only for certain types of laundry;
you could undertake to use shorter cycles;
you could reduce the laundry by a different amount, e.g. by 30% or 25%;
you could undertake to do a lot of measurements and metering so you can later make better informed decisions;
etc.
As mentioned above, the most important reason for struggling and being indecisive about the challenge was that several people felt they could not make a laundry decision without their wives
35
or other members of family. However, the fact that some of them have a lot of kids (in some cases as many as 5) or have young kids, also played a role as they were worried that they will not have enough clothes or clean enough clothes if they reduce their laundry cycle numbers too much.
Furthermore, while thinking about the challenges, participants also started discussing some other issues as well, e.g.
Most of the ELL2 participants also struggled with the heating challenge. While a few of them found it easy and were happy to undertake the common challenge, mostly because their daytime living room temperature was already around 18-19 C, most of them thought quite a lot about what to do about the challenge and what exactly they could undertake to do, e.g.:
"Reduce to 20 C? Well, that's quite something with such a small child! My kids are older but I'm still worried about undertaking it... Perhaps I can do 21 C, OK, I'll do that!" (male participant)
"It's 23 C now, so if I sign up to reduce to 21 C, my family won't like it... (Perhaps I'll end up with getting divorce papers or I'll get a visit from child protection...)" (male participant)
"We have 20 C at home, and no way am I reducing it further!" (female participant)
The following short quotes are examples of alternative challenge ideas and associated questions and worries that came up:
"Could we reduce the temperature step by step, like by 0.5 - 1 C a week?"
"I can perhaps reduce by 2 C from where we are now..."
"I can perhaps start programming the thermostat and reduce to 20 or 18 C for the night..."
[in a household where it is 24 C all the time]
"I'll only reduce the temperature if my wife does not notice it... But as soon as she notices it, she'll turn it up, I'm sure."
"I'm a bit worried that my family members will sneakily turn up the temperature..."
"OK, I'll try the 18 C; I've just bought an electric blanket anyway..."
"I am a bit sceptical about reducing the temperature; doesn't it take more energy to heat the house up again?" changes in laundry practices. The data for this section is derived from various data sources:
a weekly survey sent to households;
laundry and heating diaries kept by households;
a concluding or closing survey sent directly after the end of the challenges to all households; as well as
a closing interview (ELL1) or focus group discussion (ELL2).
Moreover, indoor temperatures were monitored with a temperature logger and electricity use for laundry machines (washing machine and dryer, if used) with an energy meter.
36 3.2 CHANGES IN HEATING PRACTICES
The heating challenge started on October 29th in the Hungarian ELL households. Figure 13 presents differences in indoor temperatures, based on temperature logger data from the participants’ living rooms, during the baseline period (September 10 to October 29th) and during the challenge period (October 29th to November 25th). The changes are greater in ELL2 (-1.20 vs.
-0.95 °C), but only by about 0.2 °C.
The average reduction for the entire sample of participants was 1.06 °C. While we are aware that in some cases, indoor temperatures might drop in response to changes in outdoor temperatures, in the Hungarian case at least a part of it is due to actions taken by our participants (see also Figure 27).
As for the common challenge of reducing the temperature to 18 °C, as shown in Table 11 only 13 participants undertook it. From among these participants 3 managed to fully meet the challenge, and a further 2 almost, based on data from thermologgers. Even though this challenge was not met, in 39 households out of the 41 the average indoor temperature decreased, and a lot of other changes occurred.
Before we discuss the changes in more detail, it is interesting to see whether the data from the temperature loggers corresponds to data collected by the participants themselves in their heating diaries and weekly surveys, both of which are based on weekly thermometer readings. All participants had exactly the same thermometers installed by GreenDependent at the beginning of the Living Labs. Table 12 shows the comparison data.
Figure 13. Changes in indoor temperatures before and after the heating challenge (starting October 29th). The upper figure depicts ELL1 (n=21) and the lower one, ELL2 (n=193).
Source: logging thermometers
3 Please note that although there were 20 participants throughout ELL2, one household had a faulty logging thermometer so no data could be downloaded from it.
20.48
21.43
20,00 20,50 21,00 21,50 22,00 22,50
During challenge Before challenge
Average temperature, ELL1 (n=21)
20.97
22.17
20,20 20,40 20,60 20,80 21,00 21,20 21,40 21,60 21,80 22,00 22,20 22,40 During challenge
Before challenge
Average temperature, ELL2 (n=19)
37
Table 12. Comparison in the change of temperature between own estimation (based on baseline and closing survey), heating diary, weekly survey and temperature logger data
Average temperature in
Table 12 also shows that our data gained from the different sources is comparable.
In relation to indoor temperature, it is also notable to recognize how the expectation of what is
Figure 14. What do you consider a good indoor temperature in the living area bedroom in winter during daytime?
Source: Baseline (n=41) and closing (n=41) survey
Although only about a third of the ELL participants (33%) agreed to take on the common heating challenge, i.e. reduce daytime temperature in their living area to 18 C, most of the participants were open to experimenting with cooler temperatures. In the interviews and focus group discussion several of them commented that they were surprised how well they could handle reduced temperatures, for example, as a female participant remarked:
"It was a surprise for me to feel good at 19 degrees. I’m happy to have this experience."
However, even though they were participants who felt happy at 18 or 19 C in both ELL1 and ELL2; generally, reducing the indoor daytime temperature to 18 C was considered too much by most participants. As shown in Figure 14 as well, 20 or 21 C is considered the most acceptable indoor temperature at the end of the heating challenge or the living lab, which, from a sustainability point of view is an improvement on the 22-23 C at the beginning of the challenge (see Chapter
Figure 14. What do you consider a good indoor temperature in winter in the living-room?
Closing Baseline
38
Several participants also remarked that they were fine with cooler temperatures but it helped them to have a warmer spot in the house where they could go to warm up. For example, this happened in several homes that had a central gas heating for which they set the thermostat lower, but they also have a wood-burning tile stove in the living room which gives off extra heat, but only at a specific place, usually the living-room, in the house. So, the family could gather there to warm up.
This is illustrated well by a quote from a female participant:
"I'm quite confident I've managed to do the common challenge. We have a tile stove and gas convectors for heating. People who visited us said that I must have lost my mind and that I will fall ill for sure and will need to pay a lot for medicine. But I reduced the temperature to 18 C and I didn't get ill. I had to put on several layers. But I've done it! Now there's a kind of race with the cats to the tile stove, to see who gets there first and gets to sit in the warm spot. But reducing the temperature works well. We put on more clothes, 2 pairs of warm socks, drink tea, play games, exercise. All in all, we're into it, it works."
All in all, even though participants were quite open to experimenting with staying warm at lower temperatures, there appeared to be more family disagreements about the heating challenge than the laundry. Mostly female members, but in some cases male members of households, and sometimes the kids, were unhappy about reducing the temperature. They did not like the fact that their partners and/or parents agreed to trying it.
In terms of habits and routines in Chapter 2.1 relying on baseline survey data and deliberation interviews and focus group discussion we observed that ELL participants already at that stage were aware of various methods to keep warm without turning up the heating. As a result of the challenge, they did start doing a lot of these things more frequently as illustrated in Figure 15.
Those actions that were done more frequently by at least half of all participating households are indicated in green in Figure 15. It can be seen that wearing extra clothing, wearing warm socks and slippers, and using a blanket to keep warm when sitting at one place are the actions that have been done more frequently by the highest number of households as compared to before the challenge. It is also notable to mention that none of the actions listed were done less frequently than before the challenge.
Figure 15: The number of ELL households doing various sustainable heating practices at the end of the ELLs
Source: closing survey (n=41)
39
In addition to the actions the ENERGISE consortium asked about in the closing survey, during individual interviews and focus group meetings participants mentioned other changes in their routines, or other everyday activities that they started doing differently. For example:
some participants bought new warm pyjamas, having been inspired by the warm socks in the challenge kit;
some people remarked that before the challenge they kept changing the settings of the thermostat, but they stopped doing it for the challenge;
participants also liked the idea of drinking tea and hot chocolate; and
inspired partly by the heating challenge kit (see Chapter 1.4) they also liked the idea of playing board games and being together in the same room this way.
There were also some people who reported that they did not really change their heating habits.
Instead, they became more conscious about the things they were doing anyway to keep warm. This actually was quite a general conclusion in the group; a lot of participants mentioned it both in ELL1 and ELL2.
Participants also reported that they simply got used to being in cooler temperatures, and after a while they even started feeling too warm in it.
As for skills and competencies, at interviews and focus group discussions some participants mentioned that they learnt to feel the temperature in their homes, i.e. learnt to know by feel how warm or cold it was in their home. They also became more conscious about the temperature and how warm or cool each room was. Receiving the thermometer, which at the same time functioned as a humidity meter helped them a lot.
People reported learning about the link between experiencing temperature and the humidity level in their homes as well.
In relation to this, participants in general (but in different ways) realized that thermal comfort depends on a lot of factors: age, gender, activity, house characteristics, etc.
6 Spent more time with family/friends in a single room Moved around in order to keep warm Turned down thermostat settings or turned off … Changed the settings on the heating timer so that the … Used extra blankets to keep warm during the night
Turned down the heating in certain rooms Had warm foods or drinks to keep warm Used a blanket to keep warm when sitting on the sofa etc.
Worn socks or slippers to keep warm Worn extra clothing to keep warm
No. of HHs doing the practice more frequently than before the challenge Figure 15. Have you or other members of your household done more or less of
the following as a direct result of participating in the heating challenge?
(n=41)
40
As a result of having thermometers in two or three places in their home - installed as part of the ENERGISE Living Lab during the first visit to households (see Chapter 1.) - a lot of participants also realized how warm their homes were, or that rooms that they had thought to be cold should not be cold based on measured temperature results, but perhaps due to some other factors (e.g.
too much draught, uneven temperature in the room). There were a lot less participants who realized that their homes were cooler than expected as a result of having the thermometers.
As a result of the heating challenge, participants also reported having become more knowledgeable about their own heating system and how to regulate it better. In fact, as evidenced by responses given to the closing survey, they started turning down the heating more (Figure 16).
However, it is important to note here as well that some participants, in this particular case 35% of them, already had their heating systems programmed in a way that the temperature is turned down automatically.
Figure 16: The number of participating households turning down the heating in different situations at the end of the ELLs
Source: closing survey (n=41)
In terms of material arrangements, it is important to note again the importance of having a thermometer. In the follow-up survey conducted three months after the completion of the living labs, we asked participants whether they had a thermometer in their homes before joining the experiment4. As shown in Figure 17, around a quarter of participants did not have a thermometer prior to the ELLs. To some of these participants having the thermometer installed brought new information about their home as exemplified by the following quotes from an interview with a female participant:
"And it turned out that what is very warm in my place is 20 degrees in winter, so it is not so warm at all. This was a real revelation.
[...]
It turned out my flat is usually … 17-18 degrees warm in general, and I did not even
It turned out my flat is usually … 17-18 degrees warm in general, and I did not even